Dixon v. Vaughn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixon v. Vaughn

609 So. 2d 172, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1992 WL 365774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1647

StatusPublished

This text of 609 So. 2d 172 (Dixon v. Vaughn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. Vaughn, 609 So. 2d 172, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1992 WL 365774 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a prisoner at Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida, challenges the summary denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. Among other things, appellant alleges in his petition that he has been denied gain-time credit during his placement in administrative confinement. Because we are unable to determine from the petition and the state’s response to the order to show cause that appellant is not entitled to relief with respect to denial of gain-time, we remand this cause in order that the trial court may receive further evidence or argument on this point. See Cridland v. Singletary, 605 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

In all other respects, appellant’s arguments on appeal are found to be without merit. Accordingly, the cause is REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, SHIVERS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a prisoner at Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida, challenges the summary denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. Among other things, appellant alleges in his petition that he has been denied gain-time credit during his placement in administrative confinement. Because we are unable to determine from the petition and the state’s response to the order to show cause that appellant is not entitled to relief with respect to denial of gain-time, we remand this cause in order that the trial court may receive further evidence or argument on this point. See Cridland v. Singletary, 605 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

In all other respects, appellant’s arguments on appeal are found to be without merit. Accordingly, the cause is REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, SHIVERS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 So. 2d 172, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1992 WL 365774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-vaughn-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack